erictessmer

<p>Thank you for the feedback and I agree that the preferred method is stitch outside of the camera, but it is nice to have this readily available as well in the camera. <br>

The Sony A65 has this feature and I have been happy with the results. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am looking into buying this camera and so far the specs and reviews have been very positive and at the suggested price point, it seems like a real winner. But lacking on-board stitching features is disappointing, as other cameras in this class do include this and it’s a feature I really find very useful in the my other cameras. Does anyone know if Nikon will include this in future firmware updates for the D5200? <br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I recently purchase a Tamron SP70-300 for my Sony A65. Does the Tamron SP AF 2X converter work well with this lens? I would like longer reach without having to invest in another lens, and also like the absence of bulk.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback and links - this was very helpful. I ended up going with the Sony DT Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom and will go for a second 70-300mm lens sometime soon. </p>

<p>I am debating whether to get a 2.0X Sony Teleconverter (SAL20TC) to use with my existing Sony DT Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom or to purchase another zoom lens, such as the Sony <a href="http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665345645">70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Telephoto Lens </a>G Series (SAL70300G). I really love the quality of the Zeiss and think I may get the best of both worlds by just adding the Teleconverter, and of course it is quite a bit smaller to carry and about half the price. What is sacrificed when using a teleconverter vs. a zoom lens? Any recommendations?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Here is my current thinking: I want a decent zoom range (minimal 16mm – 80mm) and want the best quality I can get without breaking the bank. I am now considering the Sony DT 16-105mm or Sony DT Carl Zeiss 16mm-80mm, or Sony DT 18mm-250mm and maybe the Tamron 18mm-270mm. On the super-zoom side, although it is nice to have this utility, I am concerned about all the CA, Distortion, Vignetting, and overall degradation in sharpness/IQ and far ends of its reach. So the bottom line for me is compromise on the zoom for a better quality image. As far as speed f/3.5-5.6 is fine. Any help or opinions is much appreciated. </p>

<p>Thank you for all the helpful perspectives. The Tamron looks like it is good quality, but maybe with too many compromises because of the wide range. I am now leaning toward the Sony 55-200 lens which has received good reviews and is at a very reasonable cost.<br>

</p>

<p>I just purchased a Sony A65 with the standard kit lens, but am interested in upgrading to a better quality and longer range lens. I have heard that Tamron also has good quality lenses at a reasonable price and seriously looking at the af 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 di ii vc ld. I am on a tight budget and would appreciate opinions on the above or any other options. Thank you</p>

<p>Thank you for all the helpful suggestions and I am leaning toward the Sony 55-200. The Sony 55-200 is great price and is the same price as the Tamron 55-200. Also, I heard that Sony has some type of lens registration to compensate out CA – any thoughts as to what value this adds?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I just purchased a Sony A65 with the standard kit lens, but am interested in upgrading to a better quality and longer range lens. I am considering either the Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM DT Telephoto Zoom Lens or the Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Compact Super Telephoto Zoom Lens. I have heard that Tamron also has good quality lenses at a reasonable price and seriously looking at the af 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 di ii vc ld. I am on a tight budget and would appreciate opinions on the above or any other options.<br />Thank you</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

<h1 >Is anyone using Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 to create their HDR photos? If so how does this compare to Photomatix? Thanks </h1>

<p><br /><br /></p>

<p>It is great getting all the different perspectives on HDR (HDRI). In looking at this site’s home page under Editors’ Picks <strong><a href="../editors-picks/2011/fall-foliage-photography/">Fall Foliage Photography 2011</a></strong><a href="../editors-picks/2011/fall-foliage-photography/"></a>, to my eyes, these all seem to be HDR processed images. Am I correct? I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask photographers to state if there was HDR or any other type of post processing applied, just like many photographers list camera type, lens type, F-stop, ISO, shutter speed, etc.?</p>

<p>Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. It seems that HDR has a place in moderation and, of course, it is very subjective as to how much and when to apply it, if at all. I am getting a new Sony A65 which has HDR processing built in, which I am looking forward to experimenting with. HDR seems particularly helpful when shooting in sub-optimal conditions – like toward the sun and you want to be able to bring out details which would normally be in the shadows. Are the photogs who are using HDR using what is built into the camera, or using software such as the Photomatix that Trey Ratcliff promotes? Also, are you doing 3-5 bracketed photos at -2 to +2 on the exposure range? Thanks</p>

<p>I have been hearing a lot about HDR lately and seeing a lot of pretty amazing<br />photos. I was wondering how well accepted HDR is in the photography<br />community and at what level. I see some nice subtle HDR photos where you<br />would hardly know it was a “layered” image and then you have some more<br />intensely “Trey Ratcliff style” applied HDR. I am a bit on the<br />fence on this topic and definitely think it has a place, but how much and<br />when? Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts. </p>

<p>When using a camera with a high megapixel CCD or CMOS sensor, if you select a lower megapixel (lower than the native megapixel), do you gain any noise reduction? To put it another way, is there any benefit to shooting at a lower than native resolution other than a smaller file size?<br />Thanks</p>

<p>Sorry, MF for medium format CMOS sensor – like the APS-C size. To help put<br />my question in perspective, see the article on this link: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4299861308/mirrorless-ilc-gap-filler-or-disruptive-innovation-">http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4299861308/mirrorless-ilc-gap-filler-or-disruptive-innovation-</a> from dpreview by Axlotl. This is really what got me thinking about this<br />question as well at the B&H YouTube video on the new Sony NEX products<br />presented by Mike Bubolo : <a href="

<p>This is possibly the direction I see the industry heading, but I think the jury is still out.</p>

<p>I have been following this technology for a few years now, and it looks<br />like this technology is starting to really take center stage in the mid-range<br />DSLR market. Any thoughts or opinions?</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the great information, insight and perspective. I need to take<br />a step back and rethink the direction I am going to take.</p>

<p>I currently have a D100 and am thinking of upgrading to a new D5100. Does<br />anyone know if the lenses are interchangeable, so I can use my old telephoto<br />lens on the D5100?<br />Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone who replied. I learned a lot reading through these posts, and appreciate the knowledge shared.</p>

<p>CMOS vs. CCD. Are the lines between these two technologies getting blurred? My Canon G10 15MP CCD photos look as good as my older Nikon large format CMOS SLR.</p>